The recent strain in relations between Australia and Indonesia resulting
from the East Timor Crisis has shown once again that cross-cultural misunderstandings
might be the basis of potential conflicts between Australia and its neighbour
if not addressed properly. Apart from political and economic interests
of the two countries (commonly related to human rights, transparency and
democracy issues) that might have influenced leaders' decisions and actions,
these events have clearly indicated that people from different cultural
and historical backgrounds really do behave differently. To Australia,
the future of Indonesia’s democracy means greater attention will need to
be paid to cultural aspects, along with consideration of political and
economic issues arising out of Indonesia’s past authoritarian regime.

The purpose of this paper is to explore some primary cross-cultural
issues that are the challenges to Australia if it wishes to rebuild and
foster its relationship with Indonesia in the future. The concepts and
theories behind the discussion are not new inventions, but those which
have been widely acclaimed and have gained significant success in practical
applications. Also, the value differences of the two countries exemplified
in the present work have been discussed for many years, but have received
little attention in this context. This paper will be further divided into
four parts: value orientations, historical perspectives, implications of
belief system, and the future.

2. Value Orientations

The first and foremost challenge for Australia is to recognise the differences
in value orientations and practices between Australia and Indonesia, and
to be able to appreciate the differences. There is always a danger for
some Australians who think they have know about the cultures of Indonesia
simply because they speak a little Bahasa Indonesia. Having read much about
Indonesia, travelled extensively across the archipelago, lived and worked
for a few years in the Indonesian outback, visited Bali or played the Javanese
Gong do not automatically constitute understanding of these cultures. In
many cases they might have failed to recognise the nuances of the local’s
basic assumptions and values. If they find some practices that are unusual
to them, they might regard them as "funny", "weird" or even "wrong". This
kind of attitude would not happen if they were more willing to learn about
cultural values in Indonesia in relation to its national history, and to
be more aware of the current changes in the country.

Even though Indonesia is a multi-ethnic society, and has many different
language and belief systems where variations exist as sub-cultures in the
country, generally people in the archipelago subscribe to similar major
value orientations. Or, put in other words, the people’s belief systems
and/or religions, societal structures, history together with education
and technology, have greatly shaped their worldview. Value orientations
[1] generally refer to a group of people’s or society’s unconscious beliefs,
perceptions,
thoughts and feelings, known as basic assumptions or values - in relation
to nature, time, space, etc. - that govern their behaviour. We can observe
a society’s cultural orientations, though these are very often hard to
decipher, through their strategies and philosophies as well as visible
processes and products, known as artefacts.[2] Value orientations, along
with other government and military policies, could serve as bases for judging
the extent to which issues of human rights, transparency and democracy
are applied over time. The following issues are brief illustrations of
the different value orientations of the people from the two countries that
might affect cross-cultural understanding.

First, an example of possible misunderstanding can be drawn in recent
condemnations and debates about the situation in the post-referendum in
East Timor. Some people and groups in Australia condemned human rights
violations in East Timor, saying that the Indonesian government and military
did not do enough to stop atrocities immediately after the referendum in
the troubled region. To them, there is only one truth, a tacit agreement,
which is universal. Any exceptions of illegal conduct that breach human
rights and democracy should not be allowed as this will destroy the whole
system. Parties involved should adhere to agreements. We might describe
them as people with strict universalistic orientations. On the other hand,
the argument put forward by the Indonesian government that the Indonesian
Military (Tentara Nasional Indonesia or TNI) had psychological constraints
when they tried to stop the pro-integration East Timorese from doing illegal
violence might be an example of particularistic practice. Members of the
TNI
had had good and long relationships with the pro-integration East Timorese
in fighting their enemies. How could they suddenly attack and kill their
own friends and brothers? Another case in point is the issue raised by
one of the Indonesian government officers, which might be regarded as a
particularistic practice.[3] Given the last decade of positive relationship
between the two nations, Australia was rather over-reacting, showing unprecedented
antagonism, when Indonesia was undergoing a difficult period. For many,
this might be only an excuse or justification, but for others, it is based
on their particularistic values. While universalistic orientation is rule-based
behaviour, particularist judgment focuses on relationships and the exceptional
nature of present circumstances.[4] If both parties are more aware of the
values of each other’s orientation values, unnecessary blaming games can
be reduced or avoided.

Secondly, the imposition of a set of rules on Indonesians applying for
a visa to enter Australia also reflects different cultural values being
applied to locals. The Immigration Section of the Australian Embassy in
Jakarta is very keen to know whether or not Indonesian students could support
their stay and studies in Australia. It is true that the Immigration department
should be assured that any applicants have sufficient funds for their upkeep,
so as not to burden the country when they are in Australia. However, this
regulation on most occasions turns out to be a sort of long and onerous
investigation of legal documents, including the request for financial statements
that are commonly regarded as confidential, even in Australia. If the Australians
in their Jakarta office are more sensitive to the local’s cultural background
and practices, and if applicants are more co-operative in providing consistent
information and documents, both parties could avoid spending so much unnecessary
time and energy. And, most importantly, applicants who have paid a visa
processing fee will not feel insulted by being treated as if not bona fide,
hence losing face.[5]

The foregoing example shows that: to Australians, in communication,
the mass of information should be vested in explicit codes.[6] Applicants
should submit as many documents as possible for substantiation, so we will
trust them as bona fide. However, to Indonesians, if you want to trust
me you can simply see what I have already paid as mentioned in a piece
of paper called "Confirmation of Enrolment" from the Australian institution.
Or, isn’t one bank statement enough to show that I have funds, though not
necessarily a huge amount? Indonesians will certainly believe, in that
case, trust should not necessarily be associated with transparency or details.
To them, non-verbal actions are no less important in the creation and interpretation
of communication. Trust is not necessarily stated in a piece of paper,
but the relationship that take the persons involved into account is normally
applied for achieving a particular purpose. As widely acknowledged - contrary
to Western practices - in Asia generally (including Indonesia) people place
relationship before law in doing business.

Such a diffuse culture reminds us of a practice of seeing a person from
his status (such as kinship, social connections, education, profession,
age and gender) rather than what s/he has performed or achieved.[7] Consciously
and sub-consciously, this person could use his/her status as sources to
legitimate actions. And, in such rather vague and indirect situations,
it is hard to demand transparency from him/her. S/he might tend to be vague
on a subject, beginning on the periphery of the topic - sometimes with
irrelevant details - before coming to the real point. This behaviour is
different from the 'beating about the bush' practice that is common to
other cultures, including the Western ones. 'Beating about the bush' is
situational and personal, but this peripheral approach is a rather typical
and permanent behaviour.

In Indonesian political history, a further consequence of such espoused
relationship values is that generally Indonesians recognise some individuals
to be charismatic leaders.[8] Charismatic leaders can be individuals in
the military, government-bureaucracy, religious groups, etc. Because of
such projection or attribution to these individuals, generally people believe
or accept what they perform rather than that which non-charismatic leaders
or individuals do. Even if what they do is sometimes irrelevant. As a result
of such status-based conceptions, history has shown that people gave charismatic
leaders potentially unlimited power. For some people, a charismatic leader
is needed to make a change happen, because s/he is believed to be able
to provide vision, inspire actions rather than make decisions, and instil
pride. He is expected to be able to create condition for various social
groups that are potentially in contest, to hold them together in an integrated
rather than fragmented social system.

The second consequence of cultural practices that focus much on relationship
is primordialism. Primordial identities exist in various social and religious
groups in Indonesia. Primordialism, which has to do with people’s loyalty
or sense of belonging to a particular individual or group, is also expressed
in political allegiances. Support to charismatic leaders is more rational
than primordialism. Primordial identities, which are rather emotionally
and historically based, tend to create cronyism. This sort of practice
is important to note in international relations as it can affect the mutual
understanding of the people.

Since Sukarno and Hatta proclaimed Indonesia an independent state, Indonesia
began to adopt modern-Western systems of governance. However, we will see
in the next section that its contemporary history has also shown us that
people of the country tend to elect charismatic leaders. These leaders
could exercise great or excessive power, in many occasions surpassing legislative
power.

Thirdly, Australia and a few Western countries have had great concern
about Indonesia’s transformation towards a more democratic government and
society. However it is doubtful that they will see Indonesia turn into
a Western-type democratic government and society. Although distribution
of power and decision-making process will not be in one particular person’s
hand as in the past authoritarian regime, Indonesia’s new representative
democracy has turned out to be a concentration of power in several sections
of society and among individual leaders.

Generally, Indonesia’s collective culture means the level of compromise
will be very high, as exemplified in the recent presidential and vice-presidential
elections as well as the appointment of members of the 'National Unity
Cabinet'. In Australia, the leader of the winning party will automatically
become the Prime Minister of the country and s/he then forms the Cabinet.
However, this did not occur in Indonesia. The formation of Indonesia's
new government has demonstrated that status-oriented culture, which heavily
subscribes to social connections, has nullified what some people might
have expected from a supposedly Western-type democracy. The current Indonesian
President preferred to appoint members of his cabinet from some non-winning
as well as the winning political parties and the military to satisfy different
groups' demands, making every one happy.

It is a widely accepted tenet that the better the economic condition
of a country the better education the people can enjoy. Although it is
not an absolute factor, more illiterate and/or educated society prepares
better democrats.[9] An important aspect that needs to be taken into consideration
is the poor economic condition in Indonesia today. Demanding a full democracy
in 'one night', rather than a gradual reform during a time of economic
hardship, might induce a torn society. The former USSR is perhaps a good
example that we need to learn from.

3. Historical Perspectives

When learning about the present situation and/or condition in Indonesia,
Australian people might wonder why it could become so erratic. Much has
been said and discussed about the causes of the current Indonesian’s insurmountable
crisis as a product of the past authoritarian and corrupt regime. However,
in international relations, perhaps we need to look further back to some
events in the history of the country that might contribute to the present
crisis. If one tried to understand the present rather chaotic situation
in relation to human rights violation, democracy and accountability in
Indonesia, without considering the country's long and unpleasant historic
experiences, one might miss many essential points.

Needless to say human rights is a universal but not necessarily a universalistic
value. Universal values are ethical issues that should be upheld anytime
and anywhere. However, condemning human rights violations by comparing
strategies in handling problems in the Western developed countries that
at present have practically no economic or political crises, as Indonesia
is now experiencing, might put the country into even deeper troubles. Human
rights violations in Indonesia, either to individuals or groups of people,
have to do with the consequences of centuries of Western colonisation and
the last decades’ hegemony in the archipelago, and the past regimes’ abuse
of power. It is an extremely complicated issue.

After Indonesia proclaimed itself an independent country, there are
two events that need to be noted. First, the Dutch returned to the archipelago
and attempted to re-establish colonial rule, an effort strongly resented
by Indonesians. This sparked resistance that forced the Dutch to recognise
an independent Indonesia in 1949. The Dutch occupied the archipelago for
nearly three and a half centuries, interrupted by the Britain from 1811
to 1814, and left practically nothing useful but a set of colonial system
and practices beneficial to the Master, but not suitable for the colony.
After gaining independence, Indonesia maintained the Dutch-continental
legal system for many years. Major amendments did not occur until recently.
The legal condition in the post-colonial era, aggravated by the practices
of the past regimes, has also led to severe corruption and abuse of power.
Law has been manipulated to serve powerful individuals and groups, and
those who were able to bribe legal servants. The judicial system thus did
not work well. As far as the democratisation issue is concerned we note
that the Dutch colonial regime did not really encourage democratic participation
of the locals in running the country.

Secondly, during the Cold War period two contested ideologies, i.e.
capitalism and socialism, have also affected the condition of the new nation
state. As an ex-Western poor colony, Indonesia was so eager for freedom
and so weak as to accept American global hegemony. Indonesia, for example,
adopted a short-lived federal, then a liberal system of governance. As
a result the United States began to dictate to this small, powerless country,
in part by using financial aids and grants. Feeling pressures coupled with
unstable political conditions and an unimproved economy, the Indonesian
government leaned towards socialism. However, the economic situation kept
deteriorating. On the one hand, some groups of people were not always in
line with the centre of the power: they demanded self-governing territories.
They played havoc in a few regions. On the other hand, the United States,
which was concerned about the communism, intervened in the country politically,
economically and culturally.[10] The country’s political stability was
thus shaky with mounting conflicts, particularly between communist and
non-communist powers. In 1966 Sukarno lost control over the situation and
transferred the state power to Soeharto after an abortive coup occurred.

We have seen that both Western colonisation and cultural hegemony have
also contributed to the seed of disharmony in the future of this new nation-state.
The West is thus responsible for what they have done. Today’s Indonesia
has been partly the consequence of their historic actions. As the Western
physical nomination in the form of colonisation and cultural hegemony in
the archipelago recedes there lies exposed a country troubled by shattered
cultures and a weakened economy, fragmented societies and the potential
clash of religious groups. The current crisis hitting the country has invited
another problem, i.e. huge financial loans from the International Monetary
Fund, becoming the burden of the next generations. In short, individualistic
perspectives that seek to suppress particularistic and historic realities
in a plural society have endangered the life of the nation-state and the
geo-politic constellation in the region.

Like cultural values, past experiences are normally shared, taught and
passed from one generation to another and they further affect our present
behaviour. Again, these experiences, absorbed into cultural values, bring
implications on people in the archipelago’s perceptions when they communicate
and interact with people from 'Western cultures', like Australians. There
will always a sort of 'trauma' living in the memory of ex-colonised people
concerning the motives of the 'Western people'. Even today this sub-conscious
emotion might sometimes appear as a response to an unpleasant and/or unacceptable
situation provoked by Westerners.

In this regard, we note that economically Australia might try to get
close to Asia and position itself as an Asia-Pacific country.[11] However,
as a society, its cultural values and organisational structures and processes
are essentially of 'the West.'[12] Its multicultural move [13] does not
automatically reduce its 'occidental' identity. The relationship that Australia
has developed so far with Indonesia is essentially based on economic and
geo-politic advantages. Cultural exchange-programs introduced by the Australian
government are mostly used to reinforce those advantages, not for the cross-cultural
understanding for its own sake.

4. Implications of Belief System

Another important cultural aspect is the dominant religious belief that
can potentially influence cultural values and attitudes of the people of
the two countries. As suggested by some scholars, in some cultures, people
tend to view themselves as subjugated to nature. Others seek to live in
harmony with nature. Still some others believe they are able to master
nature. Indonesia with its dominant Islamic teachings might fall into a
subjugation-harmony society. While Australia, being a Western society,
is an example of the mastery society. There is a tendency of the former
society to consider that politeness should be established in the first
instance of communication. To Australians, brashness is perhaps essential,
being part of frankness in communication. Australians are brash believing
that everyone should take control of one’s own decisions and actions. While
Indonesians believe that politeness is necessary and that external circumstances
do play a role in shaping one’s decisions/actions.

With some three hundred ethnic groups and a large population that is
predominantly of Islamic background [14], Indonesia’s society is profoundly
religious. And in this respect, it is different from Australia. As an outpost
of European settlement [15], Australia shares the heritage of the Western
civilisation - Christendom.[16] Christians were intimately involved in
the colonial activities under the Dutch regime. It goes without saying,
unfortunately, as a Western country Australia might have to bear the historical
consequences of being viewed as 'distrustful' by some ‘conservative’ groups
of people.

5. The Future

If Australia still considers Indonesia an important neighbour in its
foreign policy, rather than a potential rival of medium power in Southeast
Asia-Pacific, Australia needs to achieve a balance in various cross-cultural
aspects.

In the past, the success of Australia-Indonesia bilateral relations
was predominantly measured by the political and military climates. However,
the fact is that private sectors could be developed without political intervention.
For example, people of the two regions had engaged in exchanging goods
and products long before an independent Indonesia was proclaimed. During
the low ebb relations of Canberra-Jakarta, business people could maintain
their professional relationship without much assistance from their governments.
Ironically, business even considered it was political interests that had
so far distorted communication of people from the two countries, not to
mention the role of media in Australia and Indonesia in blowing up unfavourable
issues.

Many other reasons have also been provided, and their implications debated,
as to why there have been hiccups in Australia-Indonesia bilateral relations.
But few explanations have been provided as to why private sectors could
maintain their relationships better than the political elite. Many aspects
have made this possible. In the past people of the two countries tended
to see each other from similarities and took for granted that there were
no serious problems. Relationships between the two nations are thus built
on the 'surface levels', though they are aware of the importance of potential
conflicts resulting from different cultural values and perceptions. They
thus tended to avoid seeing dissimilarities, though cultural dissimilarities
existed. It is my contention that from now on political elites must shift
their mindsets (paradigms) and try, perhaps, to learn from the private
sectors in handling their activities without much 'noise' and thereby avoiding
potential breakdown. A few examples might be useful:

1. People in the private sector, such
as business people, manage their relationship quietly. They do not play
up issues and lecture each other when things do not go smoothly. They do
not like making overstatements, but seek solutions for mutual benefit.
An old adage should remind us: 'You may lead a horse to the water, but
you cannot make him drink.'

2. People in the private sector know when and
how to promote mutual understanding. They know when to talk business and
when to behave informally, rather than standing exclusively in their own
cultural positions and pride.

3. People in the private sector avoid unnecessary
retaliation or sanctions.

4. People in the private sector, and perhaps some
non-governmental organisations, seek WIN-WIN situations rather than offering
each other forms of 'assistance' that carry forward vested interests.

As exemplified by business and/or private sectors, smaller-unit
relationships have been least affected by political disturbances. This
reality suggests that to rebuild and sustain good relations between the
two countries, greater attention should be directed to smaller and/or informal
unit-relations along with the existing government-to-government relations,
such as person-to-person or institution-to-institution relations. In business
as well as other non-government activities, such smaller and informal relations
can be widened through a network among the individuals involved. Connectionism
(in a positive sense) that exists in many Asian cultures can be utilised
in a pluralistic society, though still sharing more common value orientations.

Cross-cultural study in international relations is indeed important
in the era of globalisation. How can we focus on 'globalisation' if we
do not understand each other well? The recent difficulties in Australia
and Indonesia bilateral relations are good lessons for both political elites
now and the future. Promoting universal values, such as human rights, democracy
and transparency in its neighbouring region is valid for a country like
Australia. However, the region should not sacrifice local values, interests
and identities, nor ignore its historical experience. Sadly, the growing
convergence in people’s taste, the consumption of ideas and technology
in the so called 'borderless world' has not brought a better understanding
among people from different cultural backgrounds.

Notes:

* Freddy Kirana Kalidjernih holds a BA (Hons)
in English Education, Universitas Katolik Indonesia Atma Jaya, Jakarta,
and a Master of International Business, Swinburne University of Technology,
Victoria - Australia (under a Higher Education Scholarship). He is currently
an Overseas Education Consultant (for Australian Education), and a Lecturer
in the Faculty of Education, Universitas Katolik Indonesia, Atma
Jaya, Jakarta. His primary interests include Education Export, Cross-cultural
Communication and Management; and particularly the Indonesian and English
Education areas. He has been a member of The Linguistic Society of Indonesia
(MLI) for 8 years.

[1] For further discussion on value orientations,
see Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961).

[2] This is not intended to be a comprehensive
definition. It is derived from levels of culture developed by Schien (1993).

[3] S. Wiryono,"Reflections on Australia-RI ties,"
The
Jakarta Post, 4 October 1999, p.4. Wiryono was the Indonesian Ambassador
to Australia from 1996-1999. According to him: "It is important for Australians
to appreciate that Indonesia is going through a very traumatic period.
The smoothly functioning democratic process that is taken for granted in
Australia is yet to be established in Indonesia."

[4] See Trompenaars (1993).

[5] So far applicants have shown great tolerance
to the Immigration Section. They do not usually protest directly to the
counter in the Embassy though they were certainly not happy, because: a)
They need a visa to enter Australia; b) In high-context culture, people
are discouraged from expressing their dissatisfaction verbally or directly,
but they tend to communicate using covert clues.

[6] See Hall (1959 and particularly 1976) on his
discussion on High-Context Culture and Low-Context-Culture.

[7] Trompenaars, op.cit

[8] See Anderson (1983) on charismatic leaders
with particular emphasis in Indonesian experiences.

[9] See Hofstede (1991).

[10] See Anderson (1998).

[11] See Garnaut Report (1989) and criticism made
by Fitzgerald (1997).

[12] See Huntington (1996).

[13] See DEET (1989).

[14] See Geertz (1960). Geertz recognises the
Javanese Muslims as santri, abangan and priyayi. Santri
are devout Muslims. Santri is generally classified into traditionalist
(conservative) and modernist (reformist). Abangan are syncretists
who are more adaptable to the mixture of Hinduism and Javanese-derived
mysticism. Priyayi is not normally recognised by experts as a religious
division, rather it might be included in caste system. Conservative groups
will tend to see "a big gap" between the East and Islam and the West, rather
then recognise there are some universal values among the three civilisations.